Thinking about Photon.

[socratus]

Thinking about Photon.
1
When photon moves at light of speed
( about 299 792 458 m/s .c=1) then photon itself shrinks into
a flat geometrical figure ( light - photon doesn't shrink outside
distance, road or spacetime )
Conclusion:
According to SRT photon is not a firm particle,
it can change its geometrical form.
2
When photon moves at light of speed ( about 299 792 458 m/s. c=1 )
its own time is zero ( infinite )
Question:
Where does the ours known time come from?
3
Gravity can change the straight movement of photon,
Question:
Where does the gravity come from?
4
In which reference frame photon moves, if gravity
( as Sun and many others outside gravity objects )
can change photon's movement ?
===...

[Ginkgo]

Thinking about Photon.
1
When photon moves at light of speed
( about 299 792 458 m/s .c=1) then photon itself shrinks into
a flat geometrical figure ( light - photon doesn't shrink outside
distance, road or spacetime )
Conclusion:
According to SRT photon is not a firm particle,
it can change its geometrical form.
2
When photon moves at light of speed ( about 299 792 458 m/s. c=1 )
its own time is zero ( infinite )
Question:
Where does the ours known time come from?
3
Gravity can change the straight movement of photon,
Question:
Where does the gravity come from?
4
In which reference frame photon moves, if gravity
( as Sun and many others outside gravity objects )
can change photon's movement ?
===...

When I think about photons in terms of quantum mechanics I think about probability waves operating outside of the space and time we are generally familiar with. I also think about the passage of time as we normally experience it.The passage of time and the 3D universe we experience are observer dependent in my view.

The idea of a probability wave operating outside of our time and associated entanglement and non-locality also operate within a different type of time frame- but not the same space time continuum we are familiar with. So perhaps the 'quantum frame' operates along with our space and time. That is to say only if we choose to make an observation.

[socratus]

1
Moon, Sun and many others gravity objects exist in a vacuum
2
One postulate of SRT says that the speed of photon
in the vacuum ( !!! ) is constant c=1.
3
Then on the one hand, as a peasant, I think that photon must move
in the vacuum, but on the other hand physicists talk me the photon
moves in the negative 4D Minkowski space = spacetime.
And nobody explain me what spacetime really is.
Then it seems to me that I find myself in a church or synagogue.
And I never could understand the priest or rabbi even
they are scientists with PhD in their pockets.
=.

[Ginkgo]

1
Moon, Sun and many others gravity objects exist in a vacuum
2
One postulate of SRT says that the speed of photon
in the vacuum ( !!! ) is constant c=1.
3
Then on the one hand, as a peasant, I think that photon must move
in the vacuum, but on the other hand physicists talk me the photon
moves in the negative 4D Minkowski space = spacetime.
And nobody explain me what spacetime really is.
Then it seems to me that I find myself in a church or synagogue.
And I never could understand the priest or rabbi even
they are scientists with PhD in their pockets.
=.

I guess this is an outcome of adding extra dimensions in order to solve the space time problem. I would also guess, that the problem of working with higher dimensions is that to need to change the postulates that you were originally working with. Your new postulates take on a different explanation for the same phenomenon. One advantage of this could be that it makes you rethink your original starting points.

Other than this I don't really know what spacetime actually is.

[socratus]

We know that photon exist.
But … … but . . . . in which reference frame ?
Someone had given answer:
' If you try to search for 'reference frame ' for the photon
'emission & re-emission', you will find only some
'Quantum-Mechanics' Mumbo jumbo and very little else.'
==..

[socratus]

We know that photon exist.
But … … but . . . . in which reference frame ?
Someone had given answer:
' If you try to search for 'reference frame ' for the photon
'emission & re-emission', you will find only some
'Quantum-Mechanics' Mumbo jumbo and very little else.'
==..

In which reference frame the photon exist?
My answer.
When the quantum of light moves with the constant speed c=1
the time for him is ‘frozen’ - stopped. Time doesn’t exist for him.
In the other words, he has eternal time.
It means that the reference frame where the quantum of light moves
also must be eternal, absolute.
====..
iss

[socratus]

The History of Existence was written by Quantum of Light.
====…

[socratus]

The energy of x-ray photon is E=h*f
The energy of radio photon is E=h*f
The energy of electron is E=h*f
What action makes difference between quantum particles ?
The frequency makes difference.
#
Dualism of quantum particle depends on its behavior, on its impulse ( h or h* ).
====.

[socratus]

There are many pretty solid theories.
How can be known which theory is wrong and which theory is true ?
The answer depends on which reference frame the theory is based.
#
We know many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 11D, . . . MD . . . . )

Existence cannot begin from a complex system.
In the beginning must be a simple model.
Therefore, I will take a two dimensions space as the simplest model.
But there are two kinds of two dimensions: the Euclidean ( 2D) space
and Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D space.
What is possible to say about these systems ?
Which reference frame can be taken as a basis of Existence ?
#
Euclidean ( 2D) reference frame belongs to a gravity space
where space and time are two different substances.
Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D has no gravity
and space and time are one and the same unite continuum.
#
Later Descartes changed Euclidean two dimensions into three
dimensions . Living in this Descartes system of coordinate
we try to understand : where did our existence come from ?
Then, in my opinion, it is logically to take Minkowski negative
Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D ( without gravity ) as the simplest model
to have the searching answer.
============….

[Ginkgo]

There are many pretty solid theories.
How can be known which theory is wrong and which theory is true ?
The answer depends on which reference frame the theory is based.
#
We know many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 11D, . . . MD . . . . )

Existence cannot begin from a complex system.
In the beginning must be a simple model.
Therefore, I will take a two dimensions space as the simplest model.
But there are two kinds of two dimensions: the Euclidean ( 2D) space
and Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D space.
What is possible to say about these systems ?
Which reference frame can be taken as a basis of Existence ?
#
Euclidean ( 2D) reference frame belongs to a gravity space
where space and time are two different substances.
Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D has no gravity
and space and time are one and the same unite continuum.
#
Later Descartes changed Euclidean two dimensions into three
dimensions . Living in this Descartes system of coordinate
we try to understand : where did our existence come from ?
Then, in my opinion, it is logically to take Minkowski negative
Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D ( without gravity ) as the simplest model
to have the searching answer.
============….

It seems to me that you are looking for a ontological reduction. It also seems to me that this is an age old problem i.e., that everything can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. In this particular instance you seems to be saying that the 'reality' is mathematics.

Just my opinion.

[socratus]

It seems to me that you are looking for a ontological reduction.
It also seems to me that this is an age old problem i.e.,
that everything can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.
In this particular instance you seems to be saying that the 'reality' is mathematics.

Just my opinion.

The world has physics / mathematics basis and the beginning of this
reality can be explained by simple and logical laws, formulas, terms .
====….

[Ginkgo]

It seems to me that you are looking for a ontological reduction.
It also seems to me that this is an age old problem i.e.,
that everything can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.
In this particular instance you seems to be saying that the 'reality' is mathematics.

Just my opinion.

The world has physics / mathematics basis and the beginning of this
reality can be explained by simple and logical laws, formulas, terms .
====….

Pythagoras and Schrodinger would probably agree with you. Me? I don't really know.

[socratus]

" Einstein's theory of special relativity followed a series of perplexing experiments . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Einstein showed that drastically revising the basic concepts of space and time
led to a consistent description of all these perplexing experiments . . . . ."
/ Book: Andrei Sakharov. Quarks and the structure of matter.
By Harry J. Lipkin. page 65.
Copyright 2013 by World Scientific Publishing /

In the others words, according to Einstein
because the space and time different from Newtonian
is possible the phenomenons of SRT.

I give another interpretation:
the phenomenons of SRT are possible because behavior
of quantum of light allow them be appeared.
The behavior of quantum of light is the cause of SRT's phenomenons.

===..

[YehYeh]

according to Einstein
because the space and time different from Newtonian
is possible the phenomenons of SRT.

I give another interpretation:
the phenomenons of SRT are possible because behavior
of quantum of light allow them be appeared.
The behavior of quantum of light is the cause of SRT's phenomenons.

I'd bet on Albert. Where the "relativity" part of SRT is is where complexity, confusion, and conundrum appear. It does not say that the speed of light is absolutely fixed in the universe. That would be SAT, absoluty, not relativity. Actually, the speed of light is a constant, not an absolute, for any point of observation, for any observer in the universe. It's the linking of the universe with the absolute necessity of interaction that makes for relativity. There is always two. Never alone. Like sith master and apprentice in Star Wars. Like teacher and student. Like image and reflection. Like action and reaction.

[socratus]

according to Einstein
because the space and time different from Newtonian
is possible the phenomenons of SRT.

I give another interpretation:
the phenomenons of SRT are possible because behavior
of quantum of light allow them be appeared.
The behavior of quantum of light is the cause of SRT's phenomenons.

I'd bet on Albert.
Where the "relativity" part of SRT is is where complexity, confusion, and conundrum appear.
It does not say that the speed of light is absolutely fixed in the universe.
That would be SAT, absoluty, not relativity.
Actually, the speed of light is a constant, not an absolute,
for any point of observation, for any observer in the universe.
It's the linking of the universe with the absolute necessity of interaction that makes for relativity.
There is always two. Never alone. Like sith master and apprentice in Star Wars.
Like teacher and student. Like image and reflection. Like action and reaction.

" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

It means that speed of light is a constant but not an absolute constant.
The speed of quantum of light is independent ( doesn't depend on outside forces )
Quantum of light can itself change its speed ( by own impulse / spin )
Therefore SRT is theory about behavior of quantum of light
====...